Re: [gentoo-project] What should the default acceptable licenses be?

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2935 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:54 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> On 2019-01-28 23:27, Matt Turner wrote:
> > It's very common to need firmware to use wired or wireless networking.
> > I would not want to ship installation media without requisite
> > firmware.
>
> I don't think that sys-kernel/linux-firmware would be affected.
>
> But if it would be affected, where's the problem? Just create
> /etc/portage/package.license for that media.
>
> Again, the main motion is for users starting with a fresh stage3 image.
> Gentoo is about choices. So the only thing which will actually change is
> an additional prompt because we are raising awareness...
>

A few questions here:

1) Do the users not currently have a choice today? (e.g. do we need to
populate the @nonfree license set?)
2) Are the users aware of the choice? I suspect this feels closer to your
intent. While its perhaps technically possible to make an informed
decisions on licensing we do not force users to make a choice, and so many
accept the default.
3) Some Gentoo community members find the existing default problematic
because it does includes nonfree software, and think Gentoo should ship
with only free software by default.

I think if there isn't a @free-only (or -@nonfree) item we should do the
work to make that possible (so ensure 1 is implemented.)

I think if we wanted to inform users about choices[0], we could set the
default to "-*" and give users a set of choices with descriptions about
each. This would require users to make an informed licensing choice by
default; because the lack of a choice would prevent an install. It would do
what you wrote though, and raise awareness about licensing in Gentoo (and
OSS in general.)

I personally am against making the default @free-only (or FSF or OSI
approved, or whatever moniker you want to assign) but I'm obviously one of
many and I'm sure there are developers who support this idea (see more
below.)

-A

[0] I assert that users have a choice today (because they can change the
variable) and if we made it default to @free-software users would still
have a choice, and the awareness benefit is actually quite limited. I don't
think having a default 'enables choice' at all, it just pushes a different
ideology (whatever ideology is the default, because most users accept and
use that.) Pushing an ideology is fine, but I would rather be up front
about such things, vs trying to write a narrative that somehow making the
default be "@free-software" somehow gives users more choices; because
assuming the license group exists today, we are not adding choices at all.
I think a @free default fits right into the Gentoo Social Contract and
while I oppose it on a personal basis (because I think the result harms
users) I do support it on an organizational basis.


>
> --
> Regards,
> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
> C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3707 bytes --]